Jump to content

Talk:BBC Three: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject BBC|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Television|class=B|importance=Low|british-television=yes|british-television-importance=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject BBC|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Television|importance=Low|british-television=yes|british-television-importance=mid|television-stations=yes|television-stations-importance=mid}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Launch date==
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
The article says:
|maxarchivesize = 100K
<blockquote>
|counter = 1
''Launched on February 9, 2003''
|minthreadsleft = 4
</blockquote>
|algo = old(365d)
Is this when ''BBC Choice'' was ''''originally''' launched, or when it '''changed''' to ''BBC Three''? --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] 17:58, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:BBC Three/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Article Title? ==
Belated answer: when it changed to BBC Three. [[User:Lee M|Lee M]] 03:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is not a formal proposal just yet. I'm gathering opinions and ideas so that we can get the BBC Three articles in a position that keeps the historic and future incarnations of it in a coherent order.


Seeing as this article covers a period that ends in 2016 and that the streaming article covers the 2016 - 2022 period and also that the 2022 version of BBC Three looks like a given. I think renaming this article and the streaming article would bring a lot of clarity to things. I'm thinking along the following lines:
The "Availability" sidebar lists "Terrestrial (PAL I standard)" which implies the channel is available on analogue terrestrial. This is untrue.


* Rename BBC Three (this article) to BBC Three (2003 - 2016)
* Rename [[BBC Three (streaming service)]] to BBC Three (2016 - 2022)
* Make a new BBC Three to either cover the 2022 incarnation or as a disambiguation page.


All of the above is to bring clarity to the individual and distinct phases of the channel.
The article reads: ''"It has been noted though that the BBC Three blobs are basically another form of the blob-like characters that are the main feature of both CBeebies and CBBC."'' However, there is no link between the BBC Three ident characters and those used by the BBC's two children's idents. They were designed by different agencies, commissioned by different people and the likeliness is a mere coincidence (and proof that new ideas are thin in TV!) [[User:Pickup Stix|Pickup Stix]]
Any opinions or alternative ideas? - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 10:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


*'''Leaning agree''' Because i found that despite defunct channel, many users adding the new 2021 logo that actually used in streaming service and future channel, assuming that the channel will return in 2022. [[Special:Contributions/36.77.95.70|36.77.95.70]] ([[User talk:36.77.95.70|talk]]) 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


There's no point creating a new article for BBC Three and naming it BBC Three (2022) TV Channel, it would not make sense whatsoever as all the other BBC Channels have only one page. [[Special:Contributions/82.19.92.117|82.19.92.117]] ([[User talk:82.19.92.117|talk]]) 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
http://biffovision.blogspot.com/2007/06/nobody-died.html
:I'm going to agree with {{ping|82.19.92.117}} and say that there should ''not'' be a new article for the upcoming BBC Three channel. I agree that it makes no sense when the other channels have one page, but I also want to add that I don't see any issue about an article that represents a channel that closed down and was "relaunched". When it comes to consistency: we in fact already have an example of such a case, [[Great! TV]] was formerly called Sony Channel which closed down in 2018 before it was relaunched in 2019. And in cases such as [[Sky Living]] and a plethora of other examples, we don't have separate articles for rebrands that are called "relaunches", so the case for having a separate article for a channel that gets relaunched with the ''same'' name and identity i.e. BBC Three is even weaker. --[[User:Jf81|Jf81]] ([[User talk:Jf81|talk]]) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
http://www.boardofppl.com/viewtopic.php?t=859&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


== Make My Body Younger ==
According to this TV insider ('Mr' Biffo), BBC3 is looking to change it's target audience. Should this be included in the article, or is it too much like conjecture for Wiki's high standard?
Youve missed Make My Body Younger, the reality show. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joaquin89uy|Joaquin89uy]] ([[User talk:Joaquin89uy#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joaquin89uy|contribs]]) 19:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:130.88.199.180|130.88.199.180]] 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
: Done. | [[User:ComplainingCamel|ComplainingCamel]] ([[User talk:ComplainingCamel|talk]]) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


== BBC Three logo colour ==
Following the test broadcasts and the preview loop on Freeview, it is apparent that the colour of BBC Three is now going to be green, as opposed to the pink logo shown as the upcoming logo for BBC Three. I believe the logo should be changed to reflect the new logo colours. [[User:ProGamerSrijan|ProGamerSrijan]] ([[User talk:ProGamerSrijan|talk]]) 10:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
: Should the background not be made black? It would make the contrast much clearer - lime green on white (or off-white) is very hard on the eyes. – [[User:Dyolf87|Dyolf87]] ([[User talk:Dyolf87|talk]]) 21:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


== Merge proposal ==
==Rebrand info==
I propose merging [[BBC Three (streaming service)]] into [[BBC Three]]. Despite previous opposition at [[Talk:BBC Three/Archive 1#Merge?]], I think this should be revisited. Asserting BBC Three as a separate streaming service between 2016 and 2022 is highly problematic, primarily that its existence within BBC iPlayer is apparent before and after these dates. The previous argument made that the streaming service article content does not fit easily into [[BBC Three]] appears false, as [[BBC Three#Replacement by Internet service]] is already a condensed version of its history section. [[BBC Three]] already prominently (and naturally) describes the streaming-only years as if the same channel as the broadcast iterations, and even contains information about the BBC One content block from 2019–2022 within its infobox. A separate article is confusing and misleading, and solves a problem that never existed. [[User:U-Mos|U-Mos]] ([[User talk:U-Mos|talk]]) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)


:*'''Oppose''': It'd be one thing if [[BBC Three (streaming service)]] was a stub (ie [[Cleo TV]], [[FM (TV channel)]]), or that the "condensed version of its history" on [[BBC Three]] wasn't '''three, massive paragraphs long'''.
I have added info about the 2008 rebrand, including new shows commisioned and how the audience will be affected.
:Neither is the case, otherwise, a separate page wouldn't have existed in the first place.
:Speaking of that [[Talk:BBC Three/Archive 1#Merge?|previous discussion]], the reason this was shot down in the first place is because the streaming version of BBC3 '''was''' a separate entity from the television channel it initially replaced. Because its content was exclusive to [[BBC iPlayer]], BBC3 & its programs were given separate on-air branding from the BBC's regular output across its linear channels.
:'''"What other channels have separate articles for their online output vs their broadcast output?", asks Walt111 on 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)'''
:The answer: [[Crave (TV network)]] & [[Crave (streaming service)]]; which merged in '''2018'''. They would have known this if they'd spent more time doing their research and " focus[ed] on making improvements" instead of "calling for deletion".
:It's been two years since BBC3 was relaunched. If the articles were meant to be merged, they would have already merged. [[User:Thecleanerand|Thecleanerand]] ([[User talk:Thecleanerand|talk]]) 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::Since you quoted me, I'll respond. It's not clear from what I said, but I was thinking of specific UK channels. For instance BBC One is a broadcast TV channel, and can be streamed from within the BBC's streaming app called BBC iPlayer, and on-demand videos can also be streamed in the BBC One section of BBC iPlayer; but it has only one article, called BBC One, not separate articles referring to broadcast BBC One and a different article referring to streamed BBC One accessed via BBC iPlayer. The BBC One internet streams (linear and on-demand videos) was available when BBC iPlayer launched in 2007, like BBC Three (and BBC Two, BBC Four, CBBC etc). The same applies to ITV1 - it's a broadcast channel, and can be streamed within ITVX, but it has one article called ITV1. In contrast, Channel 4 is a broadcast channel and also the name of their umbrella streaming service (which includes several channels including linear Channel 4), so it has two articles called Channel 4 and Channel 4 (VoD service). At no point was BBC Three (or BBC One, BBC Two etc) ever a stand-alone VoD service separated from BBC iPlayer. Here's an internet archive link to BBC Three, in BBC iPlayer in Jan 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160119005413/https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree
::00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:Walt111|Walt111]] ([[User talk:Walt111|talk]]) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' The separation into two articles, with the benefit of hindsight and the increasing fluidity of television offerings, is arbitrary. The Crave case is not identical because, despite having taken the same name, they had independent histories that only later intersected. In this case, the streaming service only existed when the linear channel was shut down, and reuniting the articles neatly fills the gap. [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style="color:#ba4168">Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her • [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 06:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I see no reason to separate these. They could easily be merged with no loss of understanding. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)


:*'''Comment''' I personally prefer '''Support'''. But if the merged artical become too long, then I prefer a independent "History" page, to include the whole history.
Any queries discuss on my page. --[[User:Markmacmillan|Mark Macmillan™]] ([[User talk:Markmacmillan|talk]]) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:Awdqmb|Awdqmb]] ([[User talk:Awdqmb|talk]]) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

* '''Support''' Definitely merge, it shouldn't have been split in the first place. The 'streaming service' article begins ''BBC Three was a British over-the-top internet television service operated by the BBC. It was launched on 16 February 2016 as a replacement for the linear BBC Three television channel, which closed down the same day but was later relaunched on 1 February 2022.'' The whole premise of that article is wrong, since the channel has been in iPlayer continuously since iPlayer launched in 2007, with the bit between Feb 2016 - Feb 2022 explained by being the period when the linear channel temporarily stopped. There was never an OTT app called 'BBC Three' which the 'streaming service' article implies. [[User:Walt111|Walt111]] ([[User talk:Walt111|talk]]) 00:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:Should be discussed here, that's what this page is for. For reference:
*'''Support''' Articles not being stubs and being 2 different things do not excuse them not merging. They can be summarized in 1 single article. If not then go with [[User:Awdqmb|Awdqmb's]] suggestion.

[[User:Spongebob796|Spongebob796]] ([[User talk:Spongebob796|talk]]) 12:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::2008 Rebrand
::There are currently rumours circulating about a rebrand for the channel in [[2008]]. This includes a redesign of the current logo and a rebrand of its programming output<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/enterthreetv/</ref>. It may mean that the current target audience of the station will be affected.

::New shows commissioned include a variety show based on social networking, hosted by [[Lily Allen]] <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/lilyallen/</ref>, a series of "hard-hitting" documentaries aimed at a young audience<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/09_september/09/young.shtml</ref> and a six-part drama series called [[Being Human (TV series) |Being Human ]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/07_july/10/pilots.shtml</ref>.

::The channel's new style has been compared to that of [[E4]]. <ref>http://www.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/12/enter_bbc_three.php</ref>

{{reflist-talk}}

::More information can be found [http://www.bbc.co.uk/enterthreetv/ here].

:Starting this section off with "There are currently rumours..." is not good. It implies that they are, indeed, rumours, and per [[WP:CBALL]] appart from all else Wikipedia is not for rumours. Taking a glance at the above sources I can't find any that state as solid fact that a rebrand is on it's way, except the fact that the BBC site cited has a different CI, so I've removed the section for now, pending the citation of more solid sources, and a reword. [[User:TheIslander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''The'''</font></sub><font color="Blue">'''Islander'''</font>]] 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Fair enough, I just noticed that BBC3 was changing due to news on the Enter Three TV minisite and adverts across BBC networks. I have tried to provide sources as best I could, but I am aware that articles cannot be written on rumours. Possibly the new shows comissioned (2nd paragraph) could be incorporated elsewhere as I have used references from a reputable source (BBC press office)?

:::Cheers, --[[User:Markmacmillan|Mark Macmillan™]] ([[User talk:Markmacmillan|talk]]) 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

== BBC Three re-launch at 7pm ==

I have just looked at the website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree and its currently under construction. So after 5 years and 3 days, BBC Three gets a new facelift :-D [[User:Onshore|Onshore]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 13:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

and it's look bad... [[Special:Contributions/222.124.19.20|222.124.19.20]] ([[User talk:222.124.19.20|talk]]) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

== Bias? ==

The article currently reads like a BBC press release, taking the BBC's side on issues such as viewership.

There's nothing here about the criticism BBC Three has received, e.g. the discussions about whether the channel should be axed because of its costs, narrow target audience, low viewing figures or for other reasons [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/humphrys-bbc-costcutters-should-axe-new-channels-401269.html] [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article2028767.ece] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7333955.stm]. Veteran BBC reporter [[John Humphrys]] is a particularly vocal critic, arguing that core programming is suffering due to the costs incurred by niche channels such as BBC Three and Four, which only "six men and a dog" watch.

This article is supposed to provide an unbiased account of BBC Three, ''not'' make the case for the channel's continued existence via reference to [[Torchwood]]'s "impressive" viewing figures and suchlike. [[Special:Contributions/217.155.20.163|217.155.20.163]] ([[User talk:217.155.20.163|talk]]) 14:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed, I thought it was a bit odd that there were no counterpoints. I'll work the first two in (the third link is a news item about Tibet... oops). [[User:SynergyBlades|SynergyBlades]] ([[User talk:SynergyBlades|talk]]) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

== Does this make sense? ==

<blockquote>
''Torchwood launched with an impressive 2.4 million viewers in October 2006, not only breaking BBC Three's previous record of 1.8 million,[6] but it is also believed to be the biggest ever multichannel audience for a UK-originated, non-sports programme, thought to be third to an episode of Friends, broadcast on Sky One in 2000, which attracted 2.8 million viewers and in 2006 with Sky One's Terry Pratchett's Hogfather which attracted 2.6 million viewers. The second episode attracted an equally impressive 2.3 million viewers, and boosted BBC Three to a 3.5% share of multichannel viewing that evening, compared to the network's three month Sunday average of 0.9%.''
</blockquote>

It makes it sound like it is the biggest ever multichannel audience for a UK-originated, non-sports programme, but then lists some that were bigger. Can anyone clear this up? Thanks, - [[User:Tholly|<font color="green">'''tholly'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Tholly|<font color="black">''--Turnip--''</font>]]</small></sup> 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Programming section requiring copy editing: has been done ==

Have had a stab at improving this section, using a list format for the majority of it, rather than lots of programmes being mentioned within a chunk of prose, thus making it rather easier to read. Have corrected concordance and other minor grammatical/syntactical errors and included/corrected/deleted incorrect internal links. Comments would be welcome [[User:Fortnum|Fortnum]] ([[User talk:Fortnum|talk]]) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

== Top Ten Most watched programmes ==

Under viewership I have added the top ten most watched programmes on BBC3 from the figures available from the BARB (back to 2005) in order to match up with similar tables in the ITV2 and E4 articles.--[[User:Hammard|Hammard]] ([[User talk:Hammard|talk]]) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if this helps but I read on a poster there that some program for BBC Three is being made at [[MetroCentre (shopping centre)]]. Can someone clarify the name? I was more focused on getting to <s>HMV and getting a free Large Popcorn (O2 Priority moments offer)</s> stores than memorizing the name of a series being made there. [[User:Matticusmadness|MIVP]] - [[User talk:Matticusmadness|(Can I Help? ◕‿◕) <small>(Maybe a bit of tea for thought?)</small>]] 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

According to BARB, Family Guy and American Dad are the top two programmes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.123.96.0|2.123.96.0]] ([[User talk:2.123.96.0|talk]]) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Blacklisted Links Found on [[BBC Three]] ==

Cyberbot II has detected links on [[BBC Three]] which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log|local]] or [[m:Spam_blacklist/log|global]]
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|request that it is white-listed]]. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|locally]] or [[m:Talk:Spam Blacklist|globally]].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the [[WP:Help desk|help desk]].

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*<nowiki>http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/to-the-bbc-trust-save-bbc3</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bchange\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact [[User:Cyberpower678]] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

== Blacklisted Links Found on [[BBC Three]] ==

Cyberbot II has detected links on [[BBC Three]] which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log|local]] or [[m:Spam_blacklist/log|global]]
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|request that it is white-listed]]. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|locally]] or [[m:Talk:Spam Blacklist|globally]].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the [[WP:Help desk|help desk]].

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*<nowiki>http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/to-the-bbc-trust-save-bbc3</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bchange\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact [[User:Cyberpower678]] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

== Logo dispute ==

From what I can tell, the logo was unveiled before the channel moved online ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3384365/BBC-spends-hundreds-thousands-new-logo-just-weeks-BBC3-taken-TV.html]). [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 20:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
:I don't mind what logo goes here, but I like the idea of this article having the 2008-2016 logo, since it was the channel's longest serving logo for around 8 years. --&nbsp;'''[[User:AxG|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#000;">AxG</span>]]<span style="color:#4169E1;">&nbsp;/'''&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:AxG|<span style="color:#000;">✉</span>]]<span style="color:#4169E1;">&nbsp;'''/&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#000;">10 years of editing</span>''' 23:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[BBC Three]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=745784992 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507070203/http://www.theairwaves.net/channelnews/4399-ireland-extra-bbc-channels-being-added-to-sky-epg to http://www.theairwaves.net/channelnews/4399-ireland-extra-bbc-channels-being-added-to-sky-epg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 08:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[BBC Three]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790344153 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212140352/http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/bbc-three-0 to http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/bbc-three-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 03:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

== Merge? ==

I see no need for [[BBC Three (online)]] to be separate from BBC Three, especially with the upcoming linear re-launch of the channel. BBC Three (online) looks like a dreadful and unneccessary article - more than half the content is about the BBC proposal, the linear closure/online launch and the statistics of viewers since the linear closure, rather than actually ''about'' the BBC Three online channel and its content. Not to mention it is severely outdated. Probably one of the worst pages on wiki I've come across. No need for it to exist, it should merge to [[BBC Three]]. --[[User:Jf81|Jf81]] ([[User talk:Jf81|talk]]) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Fundamentally different service that shares the same name. It has a different history, and if you have any suggestions on how it can be improved, why not focus on actually making those improvements rather than effectively calling for deletion? <span style="border:1px solid #445A38;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff;background:#88A976;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]] </span> 16:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|ViperSnake151}} I have taken a look and there isn't anything to improve, it's a dead end, and any "improvements" would basically be stripping down the article. --[[User:Jf81|Jf81]] ([[User talk:Jf81|talk]]) 12:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
*'''Merge''': BBC Three is one service, regardless of which platforms it's on. Same as any other channel that is broadcast and on-demand. What other channels have separate articles for their online output vs their broadcast output? [[User:Walt111|Walt111]] ([[User talk:Walt111|talk]]) 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': As [[User:ViperSnake151]] says, it is a fundamentally different service, broadcast exclusively online, and therefore has a different history with different output. As ViperSnake says, to merge the two would effectively end up with one of them being deleted. [[User:Rillington|Rillington]] ([[User talk:Rillington|talk]]) 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': These are distinct, different phases in the history of different services that are called BBC3. The name may be the same, but the legal entity behind them is different. One is a broadcast TV channel that ran until 2016, the other is an on-demand service that ran from 2016. Perhaps the "online" disambiguation may be confusing people? but these articles cover different entities and need to be separate. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 14:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|X201}} Yes the ambiguous "online" is what caused confusion, which is now renamed. --[[User:Jf81|Jf81]] ([[User talk:Jf81|talk]]) 12:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I agree with ViperSnake. If you’re going to complain so much about the poor quality of an article, than actually improve it. End of story [[User:Dannycreatire|Dannycreatire]] ([[User talk:Dannycreatire|talk]]) 17:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|Dannycreatire}} I would never jump to this stage without looking to improve first. I have taken a look and there isn't anything to improve, it's a dead end, and any "improvements" would basically be stripping down the article. --[[User:Jf81|Jf81]] ([[User talk:Jf81|talk]]) 12:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
*'''Merge''': :but BBC Three is not really a separate 'British over-the-top Internet television service' operated like a 'teen UKTV Play' by the BBC, its more of an area/section on the iPlayer, so if there is a separate article called ''BBC Three (streaming service)'', maybe articles called ''[[BBC One (streaming service)]]'', ''[[BBC Two (streaming service)]]'', ''[[BBC Four (streaming service)]]'' etc. need to be created as well?... (I suppose there could also be an argument for the ''[[BBC Three (streaming service)]]'' article to be merged with that of the BBC iPlayer rather than this one).

Latest revision as of 12:56, 29 November 2024

Article Title?

[edit]

This is not a formal proposal just yet. I'm gathering opinions and ideas so that we can get the BBC Three articles in a position that keeps the historic and future incarnations of it in a coherent order.

Seeing as this article covers a period that ends in 2016 and that the streaming article covers the 2016 - 2022 period and also that the 2022 version of BBC Three looks like a given. I think renaming this article and the streaming article would bring a lot of clarity to things. I'm thinking along the following lines:

  • Rename BBC Three (this article) to BBC Three (2003 - 2016)
  • Rename BBC Three (streaming service) to BBC Three (2016 - 2022)
  • Make a new BBC Three to either cover the 2022 incarnation or as a disambiguation page.

All of the above is to bring clarity to the individual and distinct phases of the channel. Any opinions or alternative ideas? - X201 (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning agree Because i found that despite defunct channel, many users adding the new 2021 logo that actually used in streaming service and future channel, assuming that the channel will return in 2022. 36.77.95.70 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point creating a new article for BBC Three and naming it BBC Three (2022) TV Channel, it would not make sense whatsoever as all the other BBC Channels have only one page. 82.19.92.117 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with @82.19.92.117: and say that there should not be a new article for the upcoming BBC Three channel. I agree that it makes no sense when the other channels have one page, but I also want to add that I don't see any issue about an article that represents a channel that closed down and was "relaunched". When it comes to consistency: we in fact already have an example of such a case, Great! TV was formerly called Sony Channel which closed down in 2018 before it was relaunched in 2019. And in cases such as Sky Living and a plethora of other examples, we don't have separate articles for rebrands that are called "relaunches", so the case for having a separate article for a channel that gets relaunched with the same name and identity i.e. BBC Three is even weaker. --Jf81 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make My Body Younger

[edit]

Youve missed Make My Body Younger, the reality show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquin89uy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. | ComplainingCamel (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Three logo colour

[edit]

Following the test broadcasts and the preview loop on Freeview, it is apparent that the colour of BBC Three is now going to be green, as opposed to the pink logo shown as the upcoming logo for BBC Three. I believe the logo should be changed to reflect the new logo colours. ProGamerSrijan (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the background not be made black? It would make the contrast much clearer - lime green on white (or off-white) is very hard on the eyes. – Dyolf87 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging BBC Three (streaming service) into BBC Three. Despite previous opposition at Talk:BBC Three/Archive 1#Merge?, I think this should be revisited. Asserting BBC Three as a separate streaming service between 2016 and 2022 is highly problematic, primarily that its existence within BBC iPlayer is apparent before and after these dates. The previous argument made that the streaming service article content does not fit easily into BBC Three appears false, as BBC Three#Replacement by Internet service is already a condensed version of its history section. BBC Three already prominently (and naturally) describes the streaming-only years as if the same channel as the broadcast iterations, and even contains information about the BBC One content block from 2019–2022 within its infobox. A separate article is confusing and misleading, and solves a problem that never existed. U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the case, otherwise, a separate page wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Speaking of that previous discussion, the reason this was shot down in the first place is because the streaming version of BBC3 was a separate entity from the television channel it initially replaced. Because its content was exclusive to BBC iPlayer, BBC3 & its programs were given separate on-air branding from the BBC's regular output across its linear channels.
"What other channels have separate articles for their online output vs their broadcast output?", asks Walt111 on 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The answer: Crave (TV network) & Crave (streaming service); which merged in 2018. They would have known this if they'd spent more time doing their research and " focus[ed] on making improvements" instead of "calling for deletion".
It's been two years since BBC3 was relaunched. If the articles were meant to be merged, they would have already merged. Thecleanerand (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you quoted me, I'll respond. It's not clear from what I said, but I was thinking of specific UK channels. For instance BBC One is a broadcast TV channel, and can be streamed from within the BBC's streaming app called BBC iPlayer, and on-demand videos can also be streamed in the BBC One section of BBC iPlayer; but it has only one article, called BBC One, not separate articles referring to broadcast BBC One and a different article referring to streamed BBC One accessed via BBC iPlayer. The BBC One internet streams (linear and on-demand videos) was available when BBC iPlayer launched in 2007, like BBC Three (and BBC Two, BBC Four, CBBC etc). The same applies to ITV1 - it's a broadcast channel, and can be streamed within ITVX, but it has one article called ITV1. In contrast, Channel 4 is a broadcast channel and also the name of their umbrella streaming service (which includes several channels including linear Channel 4), so it has two articles called Channel 4 and Channel 4 (VoD service). At no point was BBC Three (or BBC One, BBC Two etc) ever a stand-alone VoD service separated from BBC iPlayer. Here's an internet archive link to BBC Three, in BBC iPlayer in Jan 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160119005413/https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree
00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Walt111 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The separation into two articles, with the benefit of hindsight and the increasing fluidity of television offerings, is arbitrary. The Crave case is not identical because, despite having taken the same name, they had independent histories that only later intersected. In this case, the streaming service only existed when the linear channel was shut down, and reuniting the articles neatly fills the gap. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reason to separate these. They could easily be merged with no loss of understanding. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally prefer Support. But if the merged artical become too long, then I prefer a independent "History" page, to include the whole history.
Awdqmb (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely merge, it shouldn't have been split in the first place. The 'streaming service' article begins BBC Three was a British over-the-top internet television service operated by the BBC. It was launched on 16 February 2016 as a replacement for the linear BBC Three television channel, which closed down the same day but was later relaunched on 1 February 2022. The whole premise of that article is wrong, since the channel has been in iPlayer continuously since iPlayer launched in 2007, with the bit between Feb 2016 - Feb 2022 explained by being the period when the linear channel temporarily stopped. There was never an OTT app called 'BBC Three' which the 'streaming service' article implies. Walt111 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Articles not being stubs and being 2 different things do not excuse them not merging. They can be summarized in 1 single article. If not then go with Awdqmb's suggestion.

Spongebob796 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_Three&oldid=1260198837"